The answers given would tend to disprove that theory.
They reflect what I hear in my everyday work and general discussion.
I can assure you most I work with and know do not have a low IQ.

It just means that 64% are awake to reality and can think for
themselves
It is about time Australians started to grow up, and it is great to
see.

That is somewhat true.
for example:

--------------

Will your vote be altered by the carbon tax at the next federal
election?

This result doesn't tell you much, as people who don't want the tax
and vote Labor or Green will change their vote (in theory)
but those that vote liberal and don't want the tax will NOT change
their vote. Without knowing how people voted without the tax being
an issue, it is a meaningless answer in regards to the carbon tax.

----------------

Should Australia have a carbon tax?

Straightforward, and gives a clear result.
I didn't even know the opposition to it was that high but its good to
see.

So called climatologists ( they invented the subject and dubbed themselves
with the misleading title ) do not perform experiments, have never made
successful predictions about the future climate and are generally laughed at
by real scientists as obvious fakes and opportunists.

**For a few decades now. Here's a guy who seems to know a little about the
topic:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

**Really? What do you base that conclusion on?

Send a message to Dr Ayers explaining your POV. I'm certain he will most
interested in your well informed opinion.

Remind me: What is your experience in the area of atmospheric physics?

**Are you certain about that? Got some proof?

**Are you certain about that? Google: Svante Arrheius sometime. More than
100 years ago, Arrhenius predicted that the temperature of the planet would
rise, if humans increased CO2 emissions. He drew on works and experimental
data from guys like Fourier that has already established that CO2 was highly
resonant at several IR frequencies.

and

**I don't accept that lie. I do accept that Tony Abbott, George Pell and
Alan Jones dispute the science however. None of those guys understands
diddly about science though.

**Uh-huh. I'll play your game. YOU explain the warming trend that has been
observed over the past 100 odd years. If it is not CO2, then what is it?

**So you keep insisting. I feel reasonably certain that this guy may dispute
what you say:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

Send him an email, outlining your theories. I feel certain he will be
pleased to hear from you, telling him that the last few decades of his
research was a waste of time.

**I see. So, all those years of research performed by Dr Ayers is pointless?
Is that your contention?

Have you sent Dr Ayers an email, explaining your theory?

**There are other possibilities. Perhaps the climatologists are correct and
the religious nutters (Abbott, Pell, et al) and the talk-back radio hosts
are wrong. Let's examine the possibilities:

* The guys who study the climate have told us that CO2 levels are rising to
levels that pose a serious risk of irreversible damage to our climate.
* A bunch of religious nutters, politicians and talk-back radio hosts, with
all their climate expertise, claim that the climatologists are wrong.

Yeah, sure.

**Failure to answer question duly noted.

**Nup. Pretty smart guy, as it happens. Here's a Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

And here's one for Fourier (who I am certain you are already familiar with):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier

**Don't be rude. Read the science and ignore what the religious nutters,
politicians and talk-back radio hosts tell you. Here's a good starting
point:

**Not from the climatologists. Those claims are coming from religious
nutters, politicians, talk-back radio hosts and journalists.

**Nope. Fact is that large sulphur emissions from China are causing less
warming on the surface. The effects of visible pollution on warming has been
known for quite some time. If more pollution is emitted, then the worst
effects of the warming trend may be able to be mitigated for awhile. Of
course, when the skies clear...............

**I agree. Those who claim that climatologists are wrong are just religious
fools.

**So you keep insisting. I feel reasonably certain that this guy may dispute
what you say:

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/new_director/biography.shtml

Send him an email, outlining your theories. I feel certain he will be
pleased to hear from you, telling him that the last few decades of his
research was a waste of time.

**I see. So, all those years of research performed by Dr Ayers is pointless?
Is that your contention?

Have you sent Dr Ayers an email, explaining your theory?

**There are other possibilities. Perhaps the climatologists are correct and
the religious nutters (Abbott, Pell, et al) and the talk-back radio hosts
are wrong. Let's examine the possibilities:

* The guys who study the climate have told us that CO2 levels are rising to
levels that pose a serious risk of irreversible damage to our climate.
* A bunch of religious nutters, politicians and talk-back radio hosts, with
all their climate expertise, claim that the climatologists are wrong.

Yeah, sure.

**Failure to answer question duly noted.

**Nup. Pretty smart guy, as it happens. Here's a Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

And here's one for Fourier (who I am certain you are already familiar with):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier

**Don't be rude. Read the science and ignore what the religious nutters,
politicians and talk-back radio hosts tell you. Here's a good starting
point:

**Not from the climatologists. Those claims are coming from religious
nutters, politicians, talk-back radio hosts and journalists.

**Nope. Fact is that large sulphur emissions from China are causing less
warming on the surface. The effects of visible pollution on warming has been
known for quite some time. If more pollution is emitted, then the worst
effects of the warming trend may be able to be mitigated for awhile. Of
course, when the skies clear...............

**I agree. Those who claim that climatologists are wrong are just religious
fools.

**Yes, it is. The overwhelming amonut of scientific evidence supports the
notion of AGW. Anyone who denies the overwhelming bulk of science can only
be regarded as an idiot, or a religious ignoramous. Given that some of the
most outspoken people happne to be Tony Abbott, Nick Minchin, George Pell
and Monckton, it is only reasonable to assume that the Catholic Church has
some kind of interest in promulgating a mistrust of good science. Given the
history of the Catholics, this should surprise no one.

You are making a basic mistake in deriding these individuals none of
whom have credentials in these subject and do not claim to. They are
getting their material from others who are working in these fields,I
don't know who they are or their credentials.
The only sin is their repeating the material you disagree with which is
automatically wrong by your thinking.

**Incorrect. ALL those individuals have the same access to information from
climatologists that I do. Their ignorance stems from the fact that they
choose to ignore what the climatologists say and believe what some religious
nutter, or talk-back radio host says about AGW.

Either the climatologists are correct about the climate, or the talk-back
radio hosts are. I know who I am putting my money on.

They are

**No, they're not. The people who work in climatology tells us that AGW is a
major problem. Those who work in radio, religion or geology claim otherwise.
Of course, none of those people has any real experience in climatology.